Earlier in the month, I listened to Len
Almond talking about the new UK Physical Activity Guidelines for the Early
Years. You would be forgiven for wondering what these guidelines are all about,
because they were hardly noticed by the media when they were launched earlier
in the summer.
They make a clear argument: “there is emerging evidence that sedentary behaviour in
the early years is associated with overweight and obesity as well as lower
cognitive development.” Additionally, patterns for screen time (TV, computer
games etc) and being sedentary seem to be pretty stable over time. In other
words, less active toddlers are likely to continue that way through their
childhood and beyond, to the detriment of their health and their learning.
If all children in
the early years could be highly active for just an additional 40 minutes a day,
their health would improve greatly. That means just an extra 20 minutes in nursery, and an extra 20 minutes at home – spread across the day – for children who are walking
unaided (there are separate guidelines for babies). That sounds like a small
enough change. A "twenty-twenty" vision.
But just providing
better opportunities for highly physically-active play will not be enough.
When
I was headteacher at Kate Greenaway Nursery School, we took part in a research
project led by the National Children’s Bureau [PDF] which tracked the actual levels
of activity amongst the children. I was confident that with our lovely garden,
bikes, climbing equipment, indoor development movement play area and more, the
children would be observed to be highly active. In fact, quite a few were
hardly moving at all.
I am not proposing
periods of compulsory movement for young children. But in their absence, how
can we be sure that they are active enough?
The NCB researchers
found that children are much more active when adults are active too. When
adults “supervise” outside, children move less. So, in principle, more adult
movement outside, and more time dedicated to approaches which involve adult
participation, like Developmental Movement Play from Jabadao, will increase
children’s activity levels. In addition, by getting parents involved,
encouraging family trips to the park, walking, swimming and playing outside, we
can make it much more the norm for every young child to be much more active.
We may not achieve
100% success – but without moving to compulsion, we could do a great deal more
to encourage children to be more active.
First published in Nursery World
Read on: comments on this on the Nicktomjoe blog
First published in Nursery World
Read on: comments on this on the Nicktomjoe blog
Interesting to hear about the NCB research findings on Kate Greenaway. KG's beautiful garden invites contemplation and exploration more than boisterous physical activity. Of course, there's much more to outdoor play than being physically active - I recall your remarks to me about the dramatic impact of the new design on children's behaviour - I think you said something like 'the boys used to go out there and fight.' Well, fighting uses up lots of energy...
ReplyDeleteThanks Tim. In the era of the "fighting field" there were a certain number of children - notably boys! - who were outside a lot and very active. But other children stood almost frozen at the door, afraid to go out, in part because it was rough and there were bikes flying right past, and in part because their earliest experiences were in flats and some (not all) had little experience outdoors. So we made the first zone of the outdoors quite peaceful, bike-free, and encouraging. Where we got to, was - after the shock of the NCB research - encouraging much more adult movement outside and inside. The 2-wheel bikes were good, too. But there is perhaps a wider question here about the difference between what is "offered" to children in freeflow play environments, and what they actually take up. Does it matter? I think so, and I think we need to think more about that. Thanks again for the comment. Julian
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued that so people have responded to Julian’s excellent article. His idea of a twenty-twenty vision is a great concept because it presents a realistic target for early years settings and for parents.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I asked practitioners to look at their daily practice and identify periods when there was a lot of sitting or hanging about. Each one of them could identify at least three but they were able to change this practice and encourage more purposeful physical activity. They were able to add 25 minutes of physical activity through this simple task. In other settings some practitioners are encouraging parents to walk with their children each day to the child care setting and walk home increasing physical activity by over 20 minutes.
However, what does concern me is the lack of practical experience or guidance on how to increase levels of purposeful physical activity in child care settings in initial training. The vast majority of practitioners that I meet have had none. In this context how can we expect them to implement the recent UK Physical Activity Guidelines for Early Years.
I am surprised that so little guidance is available in the publications that early years practitioners read.
Hi Len - thanks for your comment. I agree - there is a lack of guidance, and also I am concerned (as I know you are) that the new EYFS does no better a job than the previous one of properly outlining children's development in this area, and the support they need from adults. I guess the answer to this, is to keep working with practitioners, out in settings, doing it ourselves. It's hard to see that this aspect of public health is really getting the attention it needs.
ReplyDelete